Buzzfeed Fires Editor Over Rampant Plagiarism

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Buzzfeed fired editor Benny Johnson on Friday after several instances of plagiarism had been exposed in his past work.

In an email circulated to staff late Friday, Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith explained the decision to cut ties with Johnson, the site’s viral politics editor whose plagiarism was first revealed this week by a pair of pseudonymous Twitter users.

Smith said in the email that he, along with Buzzfeed deputy editor-in-chief Shani Hilton and Buzzfeed political editor Katherine Miller, pored over “about 500 posts” of Johnson.

“In them, we found 40 instances of sentences or phrases copied, word for word, from other sites, many of them inappropriate sources in the first place,” Smith said in the email, which was provided to TPM by Buzzfeed spokesperson Ashley McCollum and has been posted below. “This pattern is not a minor slip. This is a breach of faith with our readers; a violation of a basic rule of writing; and the reflection of an unserious attitude to our work that is wildly out of line with both our standards and our ambition.”

Johnson’s plagiarism was highlighted by the Twitter users @blippoblappo and @crushingbort. In a blog post on Thursday, the pair noted three instances of Johnson lifting text from other sources without attribution.

Buzzfeed quickly altered the plagiarized language in those articles, and Smith initially appeared rather unfazed by the allegations.

While he thanked @blippoblappo and @crushingbort for “pointing out these serious failures to properly attribute two quotations and to credit a source in a third post,” Smith nevertheless called Johnson “one of the web’s deeply original writers.”

Smith responded with far more seriousness on Friday, when @blippoblappo and @crushingbort came back with another blog post detailing six more cases of apparent plagiarism in Johnson’s work.

“There are serious instances of plagiarism in this post,” Smith told TPM in an email on Friday. “We’re reviewing Benny’s work.”

After circulating the email to staff, Smith published a mea culpa to Buzzfeed readers on Friday night. In the post, Smith called Johnson “a friend, colleague and, at his best a creative force,” but said the organization was left with no choice.

Johnson lifted work from multiple sources, including Yahoo! Answers, Wikipedia and the New York Times. And with two damning exposés in as many days, there was a sense that the allegations would only continue to mount.

The Huffington Post’s Michael Calderone reported Friday that Johnson appeared to copy a Wikipedia article earlier this year while on his much-hyped assignment at Fort Hood, the Texas military post that endured its second mass shooting in five years in April.

Smith’s email to Buzzfeed staff:

From: Ben Smith
Date: July 25, 2014 at 8:50:29 PM PDT
To: Editorial
Subject: What we’re doing about plagiarism at BuzzFeed
All,

After a review of all of his work at BuzzFeed, we’ve decided to let Benny Johnson go.

This isn’t a decision we took lightly. Shani, Katherine, and I spent today reviewing about 500 posts. In them, we found 40 instances of sentences or phrases copied, word for word, from other sites, many of them inappropriate sources in the first place. This pattern is not a minor slip. This is a breach of faith with our readers; a violation of a basic rule of writing; and the reflection of an unserious attitude to our work that is wildly out of line with both our standards and our ambition.

The most important of these principles is that we owe our readers absolute honesty. When you write, the implication is that the words are yours; if they aren’t, you’ve tricked the reader. We are in the process of correcting and noting the plagiarism.

Today’s review has also been a reminder of how much we’ve grown. BuzzFeed started seven years ago as a laboratory for content. Our writers didn’t have journalistic backgrounds and weren’t held to traditional journalistic standards, because we weren’t doing journalism. But that started changing a long time ago.

Today, we are one of the largest news and entertainment sites on the web. On the journalistic side, we have scores of aggressive reporters around the United States and the world, holding the people we cover to high standards. We must — and we will — hold ourselves to the same high standards. BuzzTeam, too, has, over the last two years, raised its game dramatically, focusing on creative and ambitious work, and increasingly careful attribution.

We, Benny’s editors, also owe our writers more: We should have caught what are now obvious differences in tone and style, and caught this very early on. We will be more vigilant in the future. We will also change our onboarding procedures to make sure that the high standards of training that come with our fellowship program extend to everyone who arrives at BuzzFeed — and particularly to those without a background in traditional journalism.

Tonight’s decision is not a knee-jerk response to outside criticism, though we are genuinely grateful to the people who helped point out instances of plagiarism. Nor is it meant as a personal condemnation: Benny at his best is a creative force, and we wish him the best. Finally, it is not a warning that you’ll be fired for a small mistake or an isolated error. We will always have a more forgiving attitude toward bold failures, innocent errors, and misfired jokes than more skittish old media organizations.

We have more responsibility now than ever now to keep raising our standards and our ambitions, and to continue getting better.

Ben, Shani, Katherine, and John

Update: Johnson apologized Saturday on Twitter.

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. I remember the old days, after the Dan Rather/National Guard incident, when conservatives were convinced they had “won” the Internet.
    All hail @blippoblappo and @crushingbort!

  2. Having spent five minutes(and lost an equal number of IQ points)
    on the web site in question, I would think that being fired
    from a place like Buzzfeed would be considered by some
    to be a singular honor.
    Their content is puerile, and thus the site is perfectly positioned to market toward too many young people who have grown up thinking that Buzzfeed (and many sites like it) are a genuine “News” outlet.
    As to the plagiarism I do not condone it, but I understand it.
    There is tremendous pressure to create “content” at as break neck a speed as is possible.
    We have therefore come to a point where we must ask ourselves if this fellow had enough hard and fast journalistic experience to understand that blogging can be held to the same stringent standards as is print or other media reporting. I say this because I never lose sight of the fact that, in most cases,contributors are blogging, they are not “reporting” and are in no case credentialed members of the press, or any sort of broadcast media.
    Now, I am not at all adverse to holding anyone who posts anything of genuine “News” value to any type of public forum where it can be consumed as fact to a higher standard.
    My observation is that all these sites have so blurred the line between News and Opinion, and Between “Blog” and News “copy” that those of us with editors credentials ought to do a better and more diligent job of sorting the sheep from the goats. Which is to say, if you’re going to apply journalistic standards to everything that is posted, you had best be prepared for a lot more work, many more headaches, and be ready to apply your standards (whatever they may be) all the way, and with an even hand, particularly as regards political viewpoints with which the correspondents, editors, and even the owners of these popular sites may well disagree.
    I doubt they are, as a group, ready to do any such thing, so the pressure at hand reverts to creating “content” for an audience that by and large would not know plagiarism if it bit them on the backside.
    This doesn’t make plagiarism correct, or permissible. It does however call into question what rules we are playing under, and that those rules must be to be clearly understood and applied by, for, and to everyone who posts on the Net in a place that calls itself a “News” site.

  3. I am not sure I understand what you are getting out. Plagiarism exists outside of journalism, its not only news that people copy without getting credit.

    Nor do I see the demand for content as an excuse. If you are going to copy someone else’s work to help fill that demand…simply attribute what you are copying to the original author.

    This has nothing to do with journalism vs. blogging. In either situation, attribute what you are copying to the original source, its that simple.

    This individual just decided to take an easy road. It was no mistake. He purposely set out to use others work under his name to boost his career and brush up his “reputation” for being “one of the web’s deeply original writers”.

    He is a thief and a con man in my eyes, pure and simple.

  4. Buzzfeed is USA Today for Millenials.

    Now with more pictographs!

  5. Good luck getting a job douchebag. Perhaps as a janitor at the George Bush library?

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

19 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for doremus_jessup Avatar for John2247 Avatar for tflick Avatar for asanders91360 Avatar for bluestatedon Avatar for Robman2 Avatar for wiscojoe Avatar for daveyjones64 Avatar for maurizio689 Avatar for ratel Avatar for mildly_subversive Avatar for astralfire Avatar for kelletim Avatar for 538liberal Avatar for kitty Avatar for GreatLakeSailor Avatar for ryokyo Avatar for whateverdude

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: